On Friday, September 24, 2004, 12:09:51 AM, Claude wrote:
BCLL> The definition is for a web resource. The other word senses aren't
BCLL> applicable. That is why it is a weak theory. It isn't intended to
BCLL> be a comprehensive ontology for the colloquialism. That is also
BCLL> why 'on the web' has to be called 'colloquial' instead of a
BCLL> formal term.
Well put.
BCLL> A hard and stubborn part of writing the
BCLL> web arch doc and in fact, any specification or standard is
BCLL> to "conserve nouns" as Goldfarb said, to reduce misinterpretation.
BCLL> It is similar to formal ontology work in that respect. Ontologies
BCLL> are theories. Ontological commitment as defined by Gruber means
BCLL> committing to a theory or word sense, typically, with a means to
BCLL> verify the commitment through a testable property. What has
BCLL> been pointed out several times by several individuals is that
BCLL> the term 'web resource' is testable. So, this is a good term
BCLL> for the formal set of web architecture terms.
Yes.
BCLL> Try to conceive of a test for 'information space'.
Well, one can, with the drawback that everything tested passes. So its
not usefully testable.
--
Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org
Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group